DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 were filed on 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive. A new ground of rejection was made in view of Kim et al (US 2021/0367870 A1). The reasons are set forth below:
Applicant’s arguments: The applicant’s arguments, page 1-2, recites, “The independent claims 1, 11, and 18 all recite detecting an indication in advance of an activity. In other words, the claimed systems and methods detect that an activity-such as a file copy, print command, or window movement-is going to occur before it happens. (E.g. App at ,I 287-293). Once the system receives an indication that the event is about to happen, it can scale its performance up or down in anticipation of the event occurring by, for example, setting an appropriate number of buffers to handle the event. (App at ,i 276). The Levinson reference does not disclose or suggest detecting an indication of an activity before the activity occurs. Levinson describes a reactive system that adjusts its buffers as a reaction to performance measurements, not in anticipation of an event occurring. (Levinson at ,11-13). In response, it varies performance to compensate. (Id. at ,i 181-87). However, it never discusses or suggests anticipating an event or varying its performance in advance of an event, as required by the claims. … The Takase reference also does not disclose detecting an indication in advance of an activity, and the Office Action does not assert that it discloses the feature. Thus, the Levinson and Takase reference, either alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest detecting an indication in advance of an activity. Applicant asserts that the independent claims are patentable under § 103 because the combination of references does not disclose or suggest all the elements of the independent claims. The dependent claims are patentable at least because they depend on patentable base claims. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the§ 103 rejection. Applicant has amended claim 1 to clarify the feature relating to "detecting ... an indication in advance of an activity." However, even without this amendment, claim 1 would be patentable because the references, alone or in combination, do not disclose this feature, as discussed above”.
Examiner’s response: The examiner agrees and a new ground of rejection was made in view of Kim et al (US 2021/0367870 A1). See the rejection below.
All the remaining arguments are based on the arguments above and are responded to in full.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Levinson et al (US 2015/0281288 A1), hereinafter, “Levinson” in view of Kim et al (US 2021/0367870 A1), hereinafter, “Kim”, further in view of Takase et al (US 2022/0060392 A1), hereinafter, “Takase”.
Regarding claim 1, Levinson discloses: A method of determining a scale for buffers of a session (Levinson: para [0011], where, a buffer configured to store video frames derived from one or more stream of packet, where, analyze a “fullness of the buffer” equivalent to “scaling of buffer”), comprising: identifying, by a device, a round trip time (RTT) of a session of a client for which one or more of a plurality of buffers are provided (Levinson: fig 1, where, data packet is being transferred between Server 104 and Client Device 102, para [0050] and fig 10, para [0106], where, the flow diagram 1000 for round-trip time (RTT) checking, as performed a connection where, determined the RTT in a transfer session);
determining, by the device responsive to detecting the indication, a scale based at least on a type of the activity (Levinson: para [0168], where, “In response, it may be necessary to initiate a training session (using advanced test connection phase as described earlier) in order to estimate the broadcasting overhead. Once the broadcasting overhead is determined, this provides sufficient information to determine an appropriate buffer size to match the requested delay”); and although Levinson teaches scale of buffers and RTT (Levinson: para [0011], where, a buffer configured to store video frames derived from one or more stream of packet, where, analyze a “fullness of the buffer” equivalent to “scaling of buffer” and fig 10, para [0106], where, the flow diagram 1000 for round-trip time (RTT) checking, as performed a connection where, determined the RTT in a transfer session),
however, Levinson does not explicitly teach: detecting, by the device, an indication of the occurrence of an activity in advance of the occurrence of the activity on the client to access through the session;
Kim teaches: detecting, by the device, an indication (Kim: fig 27, para [0404], where, “a packet mirroring device may generate a graph of comparing a server indicator and a network related indicator. For example, the packet mirroring device may compare a response waiting time (latency) value of a specific server with RTT value associated with a network in time sequence as a graph”) of the occurrence of an activity in advance of the occurrence of the activity on the client to access through the session (Kim: fig 28a, para [0406], where, “a configuration for interlink with a network service such as email, SMS, text or SNS is configured (step, S2812). Thereafter, an event occurrence is detected (step, S2814), and a proactive response through an early warning is performed (step, S2816)”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “detecting, by the device, an indication of the occurrence of an activity in advance of the occurrence of the activity on the client to access through the session” as taught by Kim into Levinson in order to perform a quality management to a network management part, a server management part, a database development part or an application development part (Kim: para [0008]).
neither, Levinson nor Kim explicitly teach: setting, by the device, a number for the plurality of buffers to be provided for the session in accordance with the scale and the RTT.
Takase teaches: setting, by the device, a number for the plurality of buffers to be provided for the session in accordance with the scale and the RTT (Takase: fig 5, para [0057], where, the communication device is configured for plurality of priority queues each corresponding to a plurality of service levels for each of an upstream flow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “setting, by the device, a number for the plurality of buffers to be provided for the session in accordance with the scale and the RTT” as taught by Takase into the system of Levinson and Kim in order to improve the reliability in avoiding the coexistence of packets having a different service level, and alleviate the security risk (Takase: para [0127]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding packet transmission system. and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a memory and a processor. However, Levinson discloses the memory and the processor (fig 20, para [0257]).
Regarding claim 18, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding packet transmission using a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. However, Levinson discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (para [0265]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: wherein detecting the indication further comprises detecting the indication in advance of a start of a user interactive activity on the client , and wherein determining the scale (Levinson: para [0165], where, determine buffer size equivalent to “scale of buffer”) further comprises determining the scale to decrease the number of the plurality of buffers to provide (Levinson: para [0166], where, decrease the number of buffers}.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: wherein detecting the indication further (Levinson: para [0175], where, “generate the indication of how much the buffer is filled”); comprises detecting the indication in advance of an end of a user interactive activity on the client (Levinson: para [0173], where, “The consumer (equivalent to “end of the user”) can only make bit rate adjustment requests, since it is the producer, running on the client, that is responsible for encoding video”), and wherein determining the scale (Levinson: para [0165], where, “dynamically determine an ideal buffer size (equivalent to “scaling”)”) further comprises determining the scale to increase the number of the plurality of buffers (Levinson: para [0200], where, “generate the indication of how much the buffer is filled”); to provide, responsive to a deviation of the RTT from a reference value exceeding a threshold (Levinson: fig 10, para [0107]-[0108], where, at step 1004, RTT limit exceeded the threshold).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: wherein detecting the indication further comprises detecting the indication in advance of a start of a bulk data transfer through the session, and wherein determining the scale further comprises determining the scale to increase the number of the plurality of buffers to provide buffers (Levinson: para [0200], where, “generate the indication of how much the buffer is filled”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: wherein detecting the indication further comprises detecting the indication in advance of an end of a bulk data transfer through the session (Levinson: para [0104], where, “The variable threshold may be based on the RTT values of one, some, or all of the other connections in a transfer session, such as a value that is sufficiently greater than a calculation that is based on the average RTT across all the other connections in the transfer session”), and wherein determining the scale further comprises determining the scale to decrease the number of the plurality of buffers to provide (Levinson: para [0200], where, “generate the indication of how much the buffer is filled”), responsive to a deviation of the RTT from a reference value exceeding a threshold (Levinson: fig 10, para [0107]-[0108], where, at step 1004, RTT limit exceeded the threshold).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: wherein detecting the indication (Levinson: para [0200], where, “generate the indication of how much the buffer is filled”), further comprises detecting the indication in advance of a plurality of activities on the client (Levinson: para [0047] and para [0263], where, “a computer-readable medium that includes instructions or receives and executes instructions responsive to a propagated signal, so that a device connected to a network may communicate voice, video, audio, images or any other data over the network”), and further comprising identifying, by the device, from the plurality of activities, the activity to be performed in a foreground process (Levinson: fig 3 and 4, para [0063], where, “there are two main communication protocols used for the transmission of data on the Internet, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)”), and wherein determining the scale further comprises determining the scale in accordance with the type of the activity to be performed in the foreground process (Levinson: para [0097], where, “time period may be dynamically calculated (equivalent to “scaling”); such as dynamically calculated each time a wait needs to be done”).
Regarding claim 7, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the indication (Levinson: para [0200], where, “generate the indication of how much the buffer is filled”), further comprises detecting the indication in advance of a plurality of activities on the client (Levinson: para [0047] and para [0263], where, “a computer-readable medium that includes instructions or receives and executes instructions responsive to a propagated signal, so that a device connected to a network may communicate voice, video, audio, images or any other data over the network”), and identifying, by the device, from the plurality of activities, the activity to be performed in a foreground process and a second activity to be performed in a background process (Levinson: fig 3 and 4, para [0063], where, “there are two main communication protocols used for the transmission of data on the Internet, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)”), and wherein determining the scale further comprises determining the scale in accordance with a policy identifying a plurality of priorities for the foreground process and the background process (Levinson: fig 4, para [0079], where, “Packets in the resend queue have a higher priority than packets in the send queue. That is, if there are packets to be sent in both queues, connection threads will claim packets in the resend queue prior to claiming any packets in the send queue”).
Regarding claim 8, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the indication (Levinson: para [0200], where, “generate the indication of how much the buffer is filled”), further comprises detecting the indication in advance of multimedia communications via the client (Levinson: fig 19, para [0028], where, client’s activities with synchronizing audio and video playback equivalent to “multimedia communication”); and wherein determining the scale further comprises determining the scale using at least one of: a network metric of the session, characteristics of content in the multimedia communications, or measurements from a plurality of sessions with multimedia content (Levinson: fig 19, para [0028], where, client’s activities with synchronizing audio and video playback equivalent to “multimedia communication”).
Regarding claims 9, 17 and 20, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to modify, between a start and an end of the activity (Levison: para [0080]), the number of the plurality of buffers (Levinson: para [0158]), where, to provide to the session in accordance with a comparison of the RTT with a threshold (Levinson: para [0104], where, “the RTT value may be compared based on a variable threshold”).
Regarding claim 10, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the device responsive to detecting the indication (Levinson: para [0200], where, “generate the indication of how much the buffer is filled”), whether to set the number of the plurality of buffers (Levinson: para [0158], where, “the consumer may have multiple buffers”) based at least on the RTT of the session (Levinson: para [0104], where, “The variable threshold may be based on the RTT values of one, some, or all of the other connections in a transfer session, such as a value that is sufficiently greater than a calculation that is based on the average RTT across all the other connections in the transfer session”).
Regarding claim 19, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: detect the indication in advance of a plurality of activities on the client (Levinson: para [0047] and para [0263], where, “a computer-readable medium that includes instructions or receives and executes instructions responsive to a propagated signal, so that a device connected to a network may communicate voice, video, audio, images or any other data over the network”), and identify, from the plurality of activities (Levison: para [0080]), the activity to be performed in a foreground process, and determine the scale in accordance with the type of the activity to be performed in the foreground process (Levinson: para [0097], where, “time period may be dynamically calculated (equivalent to “scaling”); such as dynamically calculated each time a wait needs to be done”).
Regarding claim 21, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: The method of claim 1 wherein the indication in advance of the occurrence of the activity comprises data gathered from a virtual channel on the client signifying that a start of the activity or an end of the activity is about to occur (Kim: para [fig 27, para [0404], where, “the packet mirroring device may extract a highest peak point among the server indicators and the network related indicators through a specific time zone and display a value of the corresponding part”).
Regarding claim 22, Levinson modified by Kim further modified by Takase disclose: The method of claim 1 wherein the indication is an action taken by a user interacting with an input device (Kim: fig 35, para [0434]-[0435], where, “The apparatus may obtain information related to a packet in different scheme, and after obtaining information defining an address and a specific entity”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 PM PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIZAM U AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights